The Counterfeiters … and the Fed

[physics-fan3.14]

Most of the spending that most people would describe as "necessary" is what I classify as unconstitutional and waste thrown down a giant rat hole. I am not talking about "pork" but most federal government outlays. It should either be abolished completely or sent back to the states where it properly belongs. Most people however, are not in favor of that. And one of the reasons for this is because they do not want a limit on government spending because the federal government can print money while the states cannot.

:thumbsup: It's all about what can the government do for me? And how much money are they going to give me?

 

And Conder, no, it is not on DVD yet. I have it saved in my Netflix queue, so as soon as it comes out on DVD I will know about it. I too very much want to see it, and agree with you sentiments concerning the Academy Awards (although if you haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet, I highly recommend that one). Speaking of DVDs, did you get yours back yet?

[EZ_E]

you can watch the movie "The Counterfeiters" free online here

[CHABSENTIA]

The Captain does not share the blame . He is 100% responsible in the end run. The President only shares the blame to the extent that he tries to stop.a bad bill. While it is true that if he rubber stamps a bad bill then he does in fact share the blame.

 

If he does not rubber stamp it and vetoes it and it is over ridden by both Houses of Congress then it becomes Law. wheter the President likes it or not. Therefore my point was and still is that the President no matter the Party etc is not responsible and only shares a small part of the blame in certain circumstances.

 

I am not sure what Power of the Fed you are referring.While it is true that the Fed does not directly affect or Control such things as Interest rates itr can have a relative impact depending on its action or inaction.

 

Since the founding of the Fed it is a fact that anytime the Fed has raised the Federal Funds rate 6 consecutive times it has signaled a recession of some degree.If it has lowered the Federal Funds rate 6 consecutive times there has been some level of prosperity. Extreme examples are what happened when Greenspan lowered them to the extreme and Bernake raised them 17 consecutive times which is three times the number that History has shown us produces a recession and a Credit Crunch, You can attribute other causes etc and say there is no recession because the Government defines it as two consecutive declining quarters of a certain percentage or use any defintion you want. The facts are as I mentioned.

 

When Central Banks in Japan. Australia and Europe were pouring huge sums into their Economies it was because they recognized it.When this was happening the Fed drug its feet and waited a month until the next open market committee.

 

In the interim, the Fed reduced the Discount rate which they charge Banks for lending Money and only affects a small part as opposed to the Federal Funds rate which affects all parts of the Economy.

 

Now you have the Fed and Paulson advocating the Elimination of the SEC and the Regulation of all Investment Banks.Apparently they don't share your views.While it is also true that it takes time for the actions of the Fed to seep into the Economy which is anywhere from 3 to 6 months depending on the severity of the action there is still an influence. Raising the Federal Fund rate 17 consecutive times or seventeen months in a row without a break to see how they were absorbed into the economy is then three to five times the norm.

 

 

I havent even talked about the multiplier effects of the Banks in making Loans and reducing them.

 

All of this is Basics and Historical Fact.If people want to believe that educated and seasoned people such as Bernake and Paulson weren't aware of such things will just have to continue to believe it.

 

I am not concerned with any Monetary beliefs or who believes them. It is their actions as well as their actions in certain climates that is the deciding Factor.Until History proves otherwise then I will go with it and the facts.

 

I never said that Interest rates could be fixed. What I have always said is that the raising of the Federal Funds rate or lowering it in extremes have produced certain results. The number of times it does it unless the situation is counter balanced which it never is to any extent has always produced a certain degree of recession or prosperity depending on the times that it is raised or lowered.

 

 

This is a great difference in saying that the "Fed is looking to fix interest rates or has a certain target."Extreme raises such as 17 times with no break to see how they are absorbed by the Economy. is not trying to attain a certain Interest rate. It is a deliberate Target of restricting Credit and the demise of the Dollar.

 

 

[World Colonial]

I have never argued with you that Fed distorts the economy if that is what you are saying. I know that which is why I do not believe the Fed should even exist.

 

What I am saying and it is true is that whatever the Fed did we would still be in this mess because there is no free lunch. The real estate bubble and the credit mania would have ended one way or the other. Maybe it would have been sooner or maybe it would have been later. Maybe it would have been slightly better now or maybe it would have been slightly worse. In an extreme example, if the Fed had not acted as it had recently and left its target at 1%, the bubble could or would have been larger and lasted slightly longer but it still would have collapsed. And this is true whether they changed their target zero or 17 times in a row or any number in between.

 

If you listen to conventional economic thinkers, they believe that if the Fed or the government pull lever A, that you get result B. That is pure claptrap. What actually happens is that you might get result B or it could be result C or D with boomerang effect E, something else or a combination of many things. They have no idea what impact their actions will have; people falsely believe that they do.

 

Most of the problems that are manifesting now are the cumulative effect of both the Fed's and the government's prior incompetent stupidity; not what they did or did not do in this past cycle. The real estate bubble is the result of their "efforts" to reflate the dot com bust. The dot com bust was the result of bubble blowing to prevent their false assumption about Y2K and the 1998 Asian financial crisis. And before that it was something else all the way back to 1913.

 

With government policy, they contributed to the housing problems by passing all these stupid programs to promote home ownership even though they had no business promoting ownership over renting. This artificially distorted demand by enabling unqualified buyers to purchase homes that they could not otherwise afford.

 

Lenders of course contributed their own incredible stupidity by issuing a loan to anyone with a pulse. Buyers willingly participated in this "game" because they thought it was a risk free proposition. But if it wasn't for the credit inflation which appeared to everyone as perpetually rising real estate prices, neither of them would have acted to the extent that they did because without these distortions, the bubble would never have gotten this big and it would have collapsed just as it has many other times before these distortions existed.

 

Bernanke and Paulson are simply unelected politicians. That's why they do what they do. You would think from their reaction and those of Congress and the other regulators that they were opposed to what happened. They were not until the income redistribution which they favor did not work out as they intended.

 

As for restricting credit, that is determined by required reserves and not interest rates. (And the market made an end run on any attempts by the Fed to correct the distortions they contributed to in the first place by creating these Bizarro world loan products.) Greenspan and financial "innovation" have already effectively lowered them to zero. Bank reserves are an absolute pittance compared to the volume of outstanding credit and the money supply.

 

As for the USD, the recent collapse in the exchange value is a side consequence of their actions plus those of the private economy. Its true that the government panders to special interests such as manufacturers who spread the lie that a depreciating currency is a method to prosperity. But since the basis of the Fed's power is the Dollar (that is what they create out of thin air), it is not true that they are intentionally trying to destroy it. If they did, they would be as impotent as the central banks of Argentina and Zimbabwe and everyone would know it. Its simply impossible to manage the conflicting priorities that they are simultaneously trying to achieve which is exactly what anyone who has any common sense would expect in the first place.

 

Eventually whether now or later, there is going to be a spectacular financial implosion. The recent actions by both the Fed and the government are evidence that apparently there is no limit to the incompetent stupidity which they both will try to artificially distort the economy to maintain the illusion of false prosperity. And when it does happen, we will see it as at least the deepest economic contraction since the great Depression.

[physics-fan3.14]

I have never argued with you that Fed distorts the economy if that is what you are saying. I know that which is why I do not believe the Fed should even exist.

 

What I am saying and it is true is that whatever the Fed did we would still be in this mess because there is no free lunch. The real estate bubble and the credit mania would have ended one way or the other. Maybe it would have been sooner or maybe it would have been later. Maybe it would have been slightly better now or maybe it would have been slightly worse. In an extreme example, if the Fed had not acted as it had recently and left its target at 1%, the bubble could or would have been larger and lasted slightly longer but it still would have collapsed. And this is true whether they changed their target zero or 17 times in a row or any number in between.

 

World colonial, for the most part I agree with you.

 

It is important to point out, though, that even without the Feds or any centralized bank, economic bubbles would still occur. For example, take a look at Tulipmania, one of the most famous economic bubbles - it happened in the Netherlands hundreds of years before central banks were invented. The boom and bust cycle is one of the foundations of free markets - some would argue (and I agree) that they are in fact necessary.

 

Take a look at the dot com bubble - so much infrastructure was laid, and the internet expanded at such a rate that we are still using the excess, at extremely cheap rates. Some point to a coming alternative energy bubble, all the money that is pouring into it now is going to researching and developing all these alternative energies. Companies are going to build huge gluts of alternative power sources, and when the bubble bursts, as it is guaranteed to do, we will be left with a ton of really cheap, clean power. You might disagree with the whole global warming scam, like me, but you can't argue with the fact that an excess of cheap, clean power is a good thing.

 

What the Feds are trying to do, in effect, is smooth out this boom and bust cycle. Because the economy is an extremely complex and ever changing animal, its mechanics are not understood well enough to really achieve this. By lowering the interest rates during a bust and raising them during a boom, they are trying to dampen or hasten the growth of the economy. Their crystal ball, however, is in need of a tune up, as evidenced by the current recession.

[RWB]

Amazing how an absence of facts can lead to an argument and "conclusions."

[World Colonial]

I am aware of the instances you cite (for those who read my posts who think that I am not). It is simply impossible for me to include eveything when addressing a particular comment. Obviously, there were mania's before modern central banking. In addition to Tulips in 17th century Holland, the other two most famous ones are the South Sea Bubble and the Mississippi scheme. But in the latter two cases at least, the government also contributed to the size of the mania, prolonged it and made it worse, especially in France since it involved government debt.

 

But your comment on fine tuning is typical of modern thinking (and no, I am not picking on you). The very idea that the government or anyone can "fine tune" something as complex as an economy with 300 million people in it is ridiculous. And not only is not possible, it should not even be tried.

 

The other idea that is wrong headed is the comparison of the economy to a machine. We hear that regularly with terms such "fine tuning" and "over heating". An economy is more like a living organism in both how it acts and in its complexity. And as long the Fed and the government are stupid enough to think they can manipulate the economy like your car or mine, we will get these economic distortions or make them worse.

[physics-fan3.14]

 

But your comment on fine tuning is typical of modern thinking (and no, I am not picking on you). The very idea that the government or anyone can "fine tune" something as complex as an economy with 300 million people in it is ridiculous. And not only is not possible, it should not even be tried.

 

You misunderstand me - on this point I completely agree with you. However, this is what the Fed is trying to do. I was just reading an article on CNN today, actually, that was saying this exact thing, arguing that the Fed's purpose was to smooth out the boom and bust cycles. I think they are an important part of the free market.

[CHABSENTIA]

What I have always been saying is that the Fed distorts the Economy.There is no way that the Fed could say that we are going to attain such and such Interest rate etc.Supposedly it exists to "fine tune the Economy"

 

Your point about leaving it at 1% is true.The problem and I mentioned it before is that 1% is an extreme in the opposite way. I would guess that the move to 1% was also Political although I have no definite proof.What I said about History and lowering and raising the Federal Funds rate a certain number of times and its effect is a Historicak Fact. It is also a Historical Fact that no Incumbent President has been re-elected in bad Economic times .

 

I disgree on your sentence of "changing the target rate". The Federal Funds Discount rate is not a "Target rate". I see no target involved in changing the Discount rate unless one is talking about changing it to reach a certain "target" of an Inflation rate. I see your sentence of it making no differnce whether the Fed "changed their target zero or 17 times in a row are nay number in between making no difference as being erroneous becasue there is no evidence to back it up. The evidence is quite the opposite.

 

1. Since the Founding of the Fed there has been an increase of some relative prosperity anytime this Discount rate has been lowered 6 consecutive times.

2. Conversely there has been some level of a recession that folllows if it has ben raised six consecutive times.

 

Until there has been a case where the rates were lowered or raised by the Fed that this is proven to be untrue then there is no evidence to the Contrary.Secondly it is also doubtful that if the Fed did not exist that Interest rates would have increased 17 times in 17 months on their own without some compensating moves and/or adjusments by the Economy itself if it was being left alone and had no artificial factors that deliberately caused a distortion.

 

The Sub Prime mess etc wopuld have happened without the Fed because as I have mentioned before there was a situation where not only were their Loans to people who could not afford them and in many cases understand their significance but there were all sorts of exotic or fancy ways to finance these Loans.Not only that but Rating companies such as Moodys and Standard and Poors rubber stamped these Loans with good ratings for several reasons.

 

By lowering the Federal Funds rate to 1%, which equaled easy Money all of this was encouraged. Would it have happened anyway.Probably. But it would have been less likely at a higher rate and consequently less pain.

 

What finally happened as the restriction of these supply and circumstances raising it 17 consecutive times. Banks not only began to question these Loans but were forced to recall them because as the Federal Funds rate which affects the Interest rates of the whole Econoy began to increase there were disruptions in the Economy due to the falling dollar which for one thing resulted in the increase in the price of Oil.Because of his and several other factors then people began walking away from their homes which started to drive down prices . Many walked away because they could no longer afford the payments and many ended up owing more Money than the Houses were worth because of declining values. Many were also in a bind because they had purchased with some sort of Variable rate Mortgage and when they went from a fixed rate to a variable rate their payments increased about 30% more due to the fact that now Interest rates were much higher due to the Fed raising the Interest rate 17 times. The Banks then began to make Margin calls as these loans started to go sour.They also had a smaller pool of Money to lend because of the Credit restrictions caused by the raising of the Federal Funds discount rate.

 

I don't know which period.s you are using as your definition of a "Cycle". Again you seem to be using definite defintions for an indefinite case. If there is a cycle then there is no " target" cycle. A cycle is after the fact. For instance if I looked at the "Housing Starts" over a certain perid then I would say after the fact that during such and such a time frame that the "cycle" was...................". To say it before hand implies a "target' and again this is impossible.

 

One can't desiginate a "target' simply because the Economy is changing all the time.If the Fed had not raised rates 17 times during the Sub prime mess than there would still be a problem but it would not be as bad with the same problem and raising rates 17 consecutive times.There is just no way that one can set a "target" because there is no way of knowing which influences are operable in the Economy at any given time and which influences are not so obvious now but which will appear later.

 

My point which was much earlier was that Historically there were going to be bad times with the 6/6 rule and that the Sub Prime mess was going to make it worse.There was no way to assess the actual damage a year ago . Only to anticipate it and make certain decisions myself.

 

Bernake and Paulson may be unelected Politicians but I feel that they deliberatley let this get worse for the reasons I mentioned earlier.Secondly by advocating that the SEC be abolished and its powers granted to the Fed as well as being able to regulate all Investment houses by the Fed then they are advocating a further increase in its Powers which are already greatly disrupting the Economy.

 

Also the Reserves that are allowed the Banks for various purposes are dependent on the Interest rates so I don't know where you are coming from here.There is a Federal Funds discount rate which affects all parts of the Economy and there is Lending Discount rate that Determines how much a Bank can lend other Banks and can lend to others etc. A Bank can loan x amount of dollars depending on the level of these reserves. The Federal Reserve uses this Interest rate to to these Banks to control the amount of reserves available to it so I don't see how you can say that one is not dependent on the other?

 

I did not say that the dollar was Fed Power. What I said was that the dollar decreased against all currencies including the Indian Rupee. For the first time in two decade it decreased against the Canadian Dollar. A Barrel of Oil increased primarly due to its decline against the Euro.I never siad that they are trying to destroy the Dollar.

 

What I said was that the declining dollar will encourage Americans to stay at hoe rather than to go abroad while those abroad will be encouraged to come here. Theoretically it will also cause us to Import less goes etc for the same reason.

 

I do not know whether it was planned to devalue the Dollar so much but I am fairly sure that they knew it would happen to some degree.The fact is that thier actions were deliberate for the reasons mentioned and so it follows that any resulting consequences would also be deliberate.

 

[World Colonial]

Let me address a few of your comments one by one one last time.

 

I was not talking about the discount rate but the Fed funds rate. Until recently, the discount rate was irrelevant because the discount window borrowings were essentially zero. Right now at least, it does matters because the Fed is effectively making loans through the alphabet soup of "Term Auction Facilities" by accepting impaired collateral at full value.

 

The discount rate is not related to bank reserve requirements though obviously higher interest rates make it more difficult for borrowers to borrow. The two are independent of each other. Today, the effective required reserve is essentially zero. Banks use "sweeps" to lend their excess reserves to those who have a reserve deficit. I read recently that the Fed will begin paying interest on reserves in 2011. Whether these are related, I do not know.

 

If you are talking about required capital levels under Basel II, that does make a difference but it is different. This does limit what banks can lend. As usual, this is a complete joke given that the required levels are pitiful. This past week I saw some ratios for the top banks. Citibank is supposeldy adequately capitalized. Now whether this is before or after the most recent capital infusion, I do not know. But in any event, I am predicting that they will need to raise money again.

 

In the end, the market decides whether a private bank has adequate capital and not some arbitrary regulatory standard. All of these banks are grossly undercapitalized.

 

What I am saying about the Fed and the housing bubble (or anything else like it) is that with or without any Fed distortions, the housing market would have crashed anyway because there is no free lunch in life. The Fed can change the timing and the magnitude of these events but cannot prevent it from happening.

 

As for the Dollar being the basis of the Fed's power, I know that you did not say it. I am saying it. The USD is what makes up the Fed's reserves. If the USD were not the world's reserve currency or even a hard currency, the Fed would be no different than most central banks. People falsely believe that there is more of a difference between the Fed and other central banks such as Argentina and Zimbabwe. Well, there is only one. It is the currency they (mis)manage and that is it. The dollar is likely to remain a hard currency for quite a while, but it will lose its reserve status first and we are likley to see that happen in our lifetime. And when it does, the Fed will lose much of its existing power to effect the global economy, just as the Bank of England did in the 20th century.

[Oldtrader3]

Some of the investment banks CEO's have admitted that creating derivative securities and "prefereds" from sub-prime mortgages was a bad idea because they required complicated equations to value these securities plus, they had difficulty predicted how much reserve liquidity these banks needed to cover their financial exposure against a run on these securities. Their most dangerous assumption was that real estate market valuation was going to continue to rise despite all historical data to the contrary.

[just-john]

Real Estate Market sub prime mortgages were a direct result of the people in Washington getting into something the were not trained for or new anything about.The down hill slide started with the Federal Fair Housing Bill which in a way forced major mortgage company's and banks to give out loans in areas that they would normally lend and to people they would not normally give credit .They gave loans in areas that were going down in value to people who were not good credit risks,This knowing that they would never pay back the loan. But the lenders would make their money off the late charges and fees and the Federal

would find a way to make them whole and save their butts by taking the money from the rest of us .Have you given yours yet

 

[EZ_E]

[font:Comic Sans MS]

"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; the public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled."

 

Cicero [106-43 B.C.][/font]

[physics-fan3.14]

[font:Comic Sans MS]

"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; the public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled."

 

Cicero [106-43 B.C.][/font]

 

Didn't happen then, and it won't happen now.

[CHABSENTIA]

I don't know if we are on the same track here as there is a rate that Banks charge each other for Lending Money and there is a Federal Funds rate. The rate that the Fed charges the Banks is not a finiite thing but it does put a limit of sorts on them.It also relaxes a limit.When the Central Banks of Europe .Australia and Japan were all feeding money into their Economies when every thing started to unwrap the Fed did not step in and lower the Federal Funds rate.During the Savings and Loan debacle they immediatley stepped in with an Emergency Federal Funds meeting. This time hey only lowered the Lending rates that Banks charge each other . Even then they only put a token amount of cash ino the system through the Banks.There was a big announcement and there are people that confuse the two and interpreted this token move as an important move by the Fed.

 

The Fed then announced after this that they were waiting until the next scheduled Federal Funds open market meeting. This wasabout 4 weeks away.To me this was another signal that they were going to let things deterioate.The Fed is able to limit the amount that Banks can loan through several actions.What made it even worse this time was the Sub Prime equation and the factors that contributed to it.

 

You are correct that the Housing Market was going to collapse anyway.The actions of the Fed for reasons I mentioned earlier made it worse.Jim Rogers has called for Bernakes Resignation and this is a big move for him.I read several articles where the Middle east has been secretly talking about shifting into another Currency besides the dollar.

 

The Fed is not looking at losing any of its Power.It is trying to get more as evidence the move to abolish the SEC and absorb its Regulatory Powers as well as having regulation over the Investment Banks.

 

The Fed by their disruptions of the natural flow of the Economy will delay the inevitable but when it happens it will be a great deal worse. This is like the person who gets sick and takes OTC medicine instead of antibiotics.The Symptoms go away but the patient gets worse until the body shuts down.

[CHABSENTIA]

This is true as I mentioned earlier when I mentioned 'exotic" forms of financing.Not only did it create the problems you mentioned but the rating Agrncies such as Moodys and Standard and Poors could not interpret them properly so they 'rubber stamped the Loans with rosy ratings that belied the Loans which were actually worse.

 

There is/was actually a Mindset out there that believed that Land Values would continue to rise as they had in the past.

[CHABSENTIA]

This is true. I had mentioned this earlier when I talked about "exotic" forms of financing. The rating agencies such as Moodys and Standard and Poors made matters worse becuase they could not properly interpret and evaluate these forms of financing so they just rubber stamped them with rosy ratings that belied the Loan that were actually bad.

[Oldtrader3]

Just-John, as a matter of note, I am about to "give mine" because I have to sell my house this year due to losing my full disability income this coming September. My wife and I will be living on about 1/2 our present income (Social Security), I am disabled and can't work, plus the equity from this house or what's left of it, is needed to help buy a small home on a lot we own so that we may continue to have a shelter over our head at a price that we can afford to pay. We are current on our mortgage because ours is fixed interest but, due to health and disability income loss, we have to sell in this poor market.

 

I believe that responsibility for this mess in sub-prime loans needs to be split between people who thought they could buy on an ARM mortgage and didn't understand the financial exposure of intest rates hikes and the lending institutions that did not inform them of their financial exposure with ARM's.

[CHABSENTIA]

Sorry to hear that you have to sell in this Market. I am a liitle confused about "buying a home on a lot you own".Is somebody elses house on your lot?

 

 

Even if people are informed about "Arms' they still don't listen. I told my Son before he got married to save up money for a down payment on a house and he didn't listen.I told him not to buy any sort of an "Arm" and why and he and his wife did not listen.

 

Not only did he have me explaining it to him but both he and his wife are College graduates.In many cases the lending Institutions or the rating agencies such as Moodys and Standard and Poors didn't understand the various forms of deriatives etc backing them.

 

Several months ago I had to talk to a Bank Officer at my Bank because my Safety deposit box key wouldn't work in my safety deposit box. I had to wait for this guy in front of me that looked to be in his sixties. The girl had to explain over and over to him how the Interest rate was calculated on his CD.

 

When I was a Manager in Retail I had adults working for me that couldn't do simple addition and subtraction in order to make change if the Cash register broke and couldn't tell them the correct amount.

 

 

[Conder101]

Sorry to hear that you have to sell in this Market. I am a liitle confused about "buying a home on a lot you own".Is somebody elses house on your lot?

Possibly he means a smaller home and lot that they own rather than a home and lot that they and the bank own so he no longer has to worry about paying a mortgage.

[CHABSENTIA]

That would also be a possibilty.

[Oldtrader3]

We are hoping to buy a manufactured home because they are quite nice and high quality now, in fact they are better built than many "stick built" homes. The home that I live in now has many defects, shoddy workmanship and short cuts that I have found in the (3) years we have lived in it. We have had (2) louvered closet doors fall off their mounts on top of us because the builder double drilled the pivot pin hole for the door and did not fill the empty half of the figure-8 hole that the double drilling created. Also, none of the door knob latch sets in the room doors matched the latching plates. They were too high and I had to file all of them to fit.

 

Depending on our sale price of the current home, we may be able to pay for the new home, but I think that we will still have a smaller mortgage that we can afford. That is why I stated it the way I did. You really do buy a manufactured home like you buy an automobile. It comes down the road in two or three pieces on trucks, they pull into your driveway, they mount the house pieces on a foundation and bolt it down and together.

 

I read an article in the paper recently where they tested the real world financial acumen of highschool seniors and current college students. The number of students that had any knowledge of compound interest, mortgages and financial instruments (stocks, bonds, etc.) was under 40% for high school graduates and under 50% for college students, even college business students. Even a basic understanding of credit ratings or managing the types of checking accounts available was beyond most student's grasp, let alone understanding ARM's. This is pretty scary sending these kids into the world with absolutely no business acumen. My parents spent a lot of time educating us about conducting these affairs, as we did with my own children.

[CHABSENTIA]

My Daughter and her husband live in a Double wide out in the Country just across the from the Georgia State line.. My Son-in Law had purchased two acres of land when nothing was there. There are still trees on about one acre.My Parents are wealthy and my Father was always against "trailers".When they visted about 6 years ago from Texas we went out to see them. He was really impressed and hadn't realized that that they had progressed that far in buliding and design

 

Things are alright if you own them. I also had a friend and his wife who owned one and situated near the Beach. He put it on a lot where they rented space and told me he had to pay about $200.00 a month for hook-ups etc.

 

We mainly go out to see the Daughter when one of the Grandchildren has a Birthday otherwise they come to out House once a week. When you are inside their double wide it is just like being in a House..

 

They got a good deal on it as they found it in Foreclosure. my son-in-law can build anything and did a lot of work .He even built a large Garage from the ground up. He told me that he only needed help when he put in the rafters.

 

My Father was self-made. He always taught us to pay Cash. When I bought a home in 1979 the rules were much different. You couldn't get a Loan if your monthly payments would be more then 25% of your monthly income.Even then they preferred you put at least 15% down.

 

My Daughter and her husband listened and made good decisions. My son listened and then did the opposite. My Father always liked to say "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

 

My son has a Bachelors in Computer desgn.The University required he also have a Business Minor for this area. He hated it and I had to help him a lot in Accounting and Economics..Since my wife is Italian we spoke it in the house as a second language so Spanish was no problem for him as a course. he could do anything where he applied himself but just didn't want to apply himself in Business realted subjects.

 

Good luck on your search.Sorry to hear of the adversity.

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

Thanks for your thoughts. Ours will be a factory home which looks pretty much like a regular home, except it is built to spec, delivered in sections, and costs half what a comparable stick home would cost. Probably similar to what your daughter has. It sits on a foundation and is not moveable except by crane back unto a truck bed. My wife had one that she bought when she was widowed from her first husband. She likes them a lot.

 

We will be living in the country in central Oregon's Willamette Valley near the foothills of the cascades with a 1200 acre lake nearby for fishing. Both of us are looking forward to moving.

[EZ_E]

You looking for a neighbor, charlie?

 

You are very right that modular homes are much better quality than their stick home counterparts. They are designed to travel up to 600 miles on the highway and are much better insulated than they were. I've been considering buying one for years now.

[Oldtrader3]

Victor, if you and your wife ever want to be our neighbors, we will be living in Sweet Home, OR. You would be welcome as a neighbor.

[EZ_E]

Thanks, Charlie. How far is the lake away from you? How much is a lot of land? Is it still on a downswing or is that just the housing market? I know property taxes are pretty steep in Oregon as well.

 

As you know, I've been working as an x-ray traveler for coming on 7 years now and I have no base of operation besides the shack in Arkansas but that is too far away from the West Coast where I almost always work. So, I've been considering buying a house here in Tonopah but with gold at such a high, the mines are reopening and there aren't any good deals on the houses here anymore. So, Oregon is definitely a possibility, neighbor.

 

I'll google Sweet Home now. Even the name sounds great! How did you find the area?

[Oldtrader3]

Victor, sent PM. Land on the West Coast never goes down much unless it has a house on it. Good Cascade foothill land does nothing but appreciate, even in a small town like Sweet Home. Sweet Home is losing it's lumber mill base and is in a recession but it is too close to the I-5, Corvalis/Salem area and is on the main road to the cascades ski areas and central Oregon (Bend etc.). Some big trophy homes are starting to be built around the Sweet Home area. The town also has a big Bluegrass festival so will not fade away.

 

[EZ_E]

Sent PM

 

Didn't get it, Charlie.

 

I looked online and it looks like a great area. Lebanon is the closest hospital which is 15 miles from Sweet Home.

[Oldtrader3]

Check again, Victor. I type slowly. Reread my earlier post, I added information.